Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dave's avatar

"I hope people will start speaking with less vitriol and lot more respect for those of us who rolled up our sleeves and did the hard and dangerous work."

I have nothing but respect for the individuals who rolled up their sleeves and did the hard and dangerous work OF TREATING PATIENTS. I have nothing but contempt, and yes, vitriol, for the individuals who shut down schools, shut down small businesses, coerced people into taking experimental medical products with no evidence of third-party benefit, manipulated data, condemned millions worldwide to poverty, deepened societal divisions by employing coercion, force, manipulation, and censorship, corrupted science, triggered a global mental health crisis, etc., etc. It is intellectually dishonest to conflate these two roles, even if some individuals performed both.

Treating patients is heroic. Authoritarianism is evil, even when imposed under the guise of "public health." It is terrifying to me that so many still haven't acknowledged the destructive hubris and arrogance of the past few years. Whatever happened to "do no harm?" Even if some of these measures "worked" (btw, they didn't. Sweden came a lot closer to getting these things right), they were harmful beyond measure. Absent sincere contrition, which is wholly absent from this article, vitriol is the appropriate response to these unrepentant authoritarians in lab coats.

Expand full comment
Chris Bateman's avatar

Thank you for taking the time to write this account, I can tell you are writing sincerely. However, I do not think you have adequately grasped the full scope of what just happened, and as such I feel this retrospective falls short of accepting where this discussion must go if we have any hope of restoring faith in public health.

Let me just engage on this one point. You quote the Washington Examiner article saying:

"Lockdowns also failed on their own terms. They killed more people than they saved."

...and then reply:

"This is not only demonstrably false, but the magnitude of effect will not be known for years."

I'm afraid I must disagree. The only evidence you could possibly use to support your position would be computer projections of the number of lives which mRNA vaccination saved, which are not scientific evidence but merely hypotheses in need of empirical support. Even on their own internal terms, these studies look farcical (one that just came down the pipe overestimates COVID-19 mortality by an order of magnitude!) It is frankly shameful that the US media eats up these kinds of flaky puff pieces for Pfizer and Moderna. Touting such studies is certainly not going to restore faith in public health.

Incomplete though it might be, the best evidence we currently have is that, globally, lockdowns tragically did kill more people than they saved. This is just based on situations such as disruptions to medical care, screenings etc. Most of the deaths caused were not in the United States. If you restrict your view to the US alone, the more accurate position is your second clause "the magnitude of effect will not be known for years."

I would also encourage you to accept that what we're dealing with here isn't lockdowns, but a pernicious 'lockdown-until-vaccine' strategy. This was a drastic, untested health care intervention that was not only instituted in a great many wealthy countries, but those same countries pressured all other countries to align with this intervention - even though it was untested, and never entirely plausible.

If you want to see the worst harms of lockdown, look to places like Senegal, which lost its democracy to lockdowns, or look at the poverty inflicted on Asia, Africa, and South America by this untested and frankly reckless intervention plan. People in many of these countries were asked to starve to death to prevent transmission of a virus that posed essentially NO DANGER to them, because their population simply didn't include enough elderly people for SARS-CoV-2 to represent the public health crisis it was for wealthy countries like the United States with a vulnerable elderly population.

The best evidence I have been able to assemble suggests that the Great Barrington Declaration has been vindicated, just on the basis of excess data being posted end of 2022. It doesn't even matter whether these deaths are caused by lockdown complications or vaccine injury, it's all part of the same strategy. And regarding vaccine injuries, there is totally inadequate data because the CDC has failed completely in its moral obligations in this regard, but be sure to read this paper out of Germany which finally did the autopsies that the CDC refused to conduct:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5

We are dealing with potential negligent democide here. The unknown question is the scale of the deaths caused by these mRNA treatments.

In this context, which no doubt you consider preposterous, your concerns about lack of trust or the anger at public health officials lack a certain depth of appreciation for just how great a disaster was just inflicted on the world. As the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration tried to warn us, the proposed cure was worse than the disease. What we don't yet know is how much worse, and we still don't know how much of the harm was caused by lockdowns, and how much by these inadequately tested mRNA treatments. The fact that the British Medical Journal reported on a whistleblower demonstrating that Pfizer committed fraud in their trial data in November 2021 should have brought about an immediate pause to the vaccination programs and a requirement to disclose the source data - that this did not happen was nothing short of gross negligence.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

For all these reasons, I advocate Truth and Reconciliation. Without it I do not believe we will ever reach any kind of shared understanding about what happened. There is so much that has already been revealed by research that has been declared 'forbidden knowledge' as far as mainstream media is concerned. It is hopeless to persist in this situation where we can have no common agreement about what just happened. It is pointless to lament that people no longer trust doctors without committing to a process of Truth and Reconciliation whereby people are allowed to tell the stories of the harms they suffered, and the truth might be heard about what was going on behind closed doors.

Again, I thank you for speaking from the heart. But your account of what just happened is at best a quarter of the story, and at least a quarter of what you believe is based on patently false interpretations of the available evidence, or indeed the negligent absence of evidence. If you truly wish to restore faith in doctors and public health, we urgently need Truth and Reconciliation. Saying 'we did our best' simply isn't enough to atone for the global disaster that was just inflicted upon the people of our planet.

In hope of a better future,

Dr Chris Bateman

Expand full comment
252 more comments...

No posts